What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Are you saying the extremists in the Republican party are not the people in power today? To claim they haven't gained ground "in any material way" ignores the reality of the current administration.

The GOP is objectively more right-wing today than it was under Bush. Between Project 2025, the DOGE gutting the civil service, and the constant purging of anyone labeled a RINO, the people you call "off their rockers" are the ones actually running the show.

If the "nutballs" are the ones signing the executive orders and commanding ICE, they aren't outliers anymore. They are the establishment.

No, the extremists are not in charge. The policies being pushed are not actually different than they've been for essentially my entire adult life. The policies being pushed by Democrats have changed, however, pretty materially. Democrats have moved more to the left over time than Republicans have moved to the right. There've been a few studies on this in recent years, this is one of the most recent:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/2/251428/479919/A-new-measure-of-issue-polarization-using-k-means

 

[lobosrul5]

No, the extremists are not in charge. The policies being pushed are not actually different than they've been for essentially my entire adult life. The policies being pushed by Democrats have changed, however, pretty materially. Democrats have moved more to the left over time than Republicans have moved to the right. There've been a few studies on this in recent years, this is one of the most recent:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/2/251428/479919/A-new-measure-of-issue-polarization-using-k-means

View attachment 68842

Its really hard to quantize how far right threatening to annex Greenland is.

Bizarrely though, some of Trumps agenda is historically left wing. Like tariffs*, or a 10% cap on credit card interest.

*in the 5th and 6th historical party systems, before that tarrifs were more right wing than left wing

 

[dirtywick]

it looks to me like that study shows the electorate's opinions have shifted more left, not the policy enacted

In each year, one cluster is more to the right, and one more to the left. The regression lines show that the left-wing cluster moves over time to be situated in more of a left-wing position (b = −0.0046, se = 0.0001, p < 0.001), whereas the right-wing cluster moves to be situated more to the right, though the amount of movement is negligible (b = 0.0004, se = 0.0001, p < 0.001). This pattern suggests mean opinion in the US has become more left-wing, while simultaneously the clusters have spread further apart.

seems to suggest that to be more appealing to voters they should cater towards more leftist views?

or am i missing something?

 

[Emily's Cat]

maybe, what did you have in mind?

Universal Basic Income is a progressive policy. It has a very definite risk of freeloading, and of at least some people choosing not to work and only subsisting on UBI. That would have the easily foreseeable result of depleting the tax funds available by which to fund UBI in the first place. So there's a risk of either the entire thing collapsing until everyone is at poverty level or needing to constantly increase the tax rates on higher incomes... which also risks either capital flight or a constantly lowering threshold for those high rate brackets - eventually leading to the same outcome. A mitigation to that might be to start with very low UBI as a stipend bolstered by needs-based supports, with a slow increase over a long period of time so that the population can adapt. Another mitigation might be to start with it NOT being universal, but setting a minimum income gap-fill approach, and then slowly increase the threshold over time until it includes nearly everyone. It may also need to incorporate planned changes to the taxation methods shifting away from income toward sales or other use-based taxes to ensure sufficient funds available. There are undoubtedly other possibilities that I haven't thought of, but there should at least be some sort of a planned monitoring and if it isn't working, it gets rolled back.

Universal Health Care is another progressive policy. It has two but risks: It could put hundreds of thousands of people out of work overnight and as it's been proposed, it doesn't address the underlying cost of care in any way. All of the proposals have been Universal Health Insurance approaches. An easy mitigation strategy would be to use a slow-roll into a Swiss style solution, public-private combined system. For all intents it would be "Medicare for All", but phased in over the course of a decade or more. It would need to be paired with a federally defined fee schedule for care delivery, because if we don't address the actual costs, it won't fix anything - it just shifts the completely unsustainable cost onto taxpayers, which allows exploitation by providers. Another mitigation might be to leave the insurance aspect out of the first phase completely, and start with making all health care delivery into federal positions. Nurses, doctors, orderlies, pharmacies, hospitals, etc. would be federally owned and operated and treated as a public good. Once that has stabilized and appropriate fraud/waste/abuse safeguards are in place, then begin altering the insurance side of the equation until it's transitioned to a well-managed public system.

There are *lots* of progressive objectives that are well intentioned and compassionate. But pretty much all of them involve massive disruption to existing systems, and they rarely seem to include well thought out mitigation plans, monitoring targets, or an exit strategy if it starts going awry. And a lot of progressives want to impose those experiments from the top down... but they are likely to be far more effective if they start at a smaller scale.

For example, Maryland for example, has had cost controls in place for hospitals and care delivery for a long time, with reasonable but limited constraints on health insurers. They tacked the actual cost side of the issue decades ago, and it's been quite stable. It's successfully kept insurance costs at an affordable level for quite some time. It was an experiment tried on a relatively small scale, addressing the actual problem, implemented over time. And it's proven to be effective. That's a system that I would 100% support expanding to other states, and eventually to the federal level. And if it's planned for a moderate time scale, it will minimize the economic impacts of the disruption.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does the Mayor of New York City affect the stock exchange and the UN? I hadn't realized.

How well the city functions affects whether or not the UN stays there, and whether the exchange stays put. If the city becomes a wasteland through poor local management, companies and entities will move away to somewhere that is more suitable.

You get that NYSE and UN rely on people being willing to live and work there, right? And if the location becomes untenable, there won't be people willing to stay there. Or you end up losing the best and brightest to locations that are more favorable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it is not my assertion. It is a demonstrable fact that core progressive demographics stayed home in 2024 after coming out and voting in 2020.

Purely my speculative impression: Progressives turned out in 2020 specifically to vote *against* Trump... as did a LOT of moderates who had sat out 2016. Turned out that Democrats didn't do a materially better job, so progressives and moderates chose not to participate at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This damn thread is really moving today, and I am absolutely not going to waste my weekend reading or responding to anything here, so this will be my final post today.

In our current Presidential system, power is a binary. There are only 2 parties who can possibly win. On January 20th, one of those parties gets 100% of the power and the other gets 0%. There is no partial credit for third party percentages or high nonvoter numbers. There is no possibility of a third party winning. When you help one side lose, the other side wins the whole pot. That is a zero sum game.

As for ranked choice voting, I agree it's a better system, but the Republicans are actively moving to ban it nationwide. Seventeen states have already outlawed it, and the "Make Elections Great Again Act" in Congress literally seeks to proscribe it in federal elections.

Given that you've stated you'll no longer take part in this thread... I'll simply say that your understanding of what constitutes zero-sum is fundamentally wrong.

 

[dirtywick]

Purely my speculative impression: Progressives turned out in 2020 specifically to vote *against* Trump... as did a LOT of moderates who had sat out 2016. Turned out that Democrats didn't do a materially better job, so progressives and moderates chose not to participate at all.

i agree, i actually saw an interview with someone claiming to be antifa basically saying the sentiment was they came out and risked their necks during blm and got their asses kicked by cops, the moderates and centrists cheering them on and then the corporate dems didn’t deliver after and were pretty salty about the whole thing

again i’m not antifa or the left, but i can see where they’re coming from.

 

[Donal]

The accelerationists are progressives... although I think most of them aren't intentionally accelerationist. Mostly, it's the willingness to put other people into giant social experiments where they don't bother to consider the easily foreseeable negative outcomes, and make no effort whatsoever to mitigate the risks involved in those downsides.

I think you've confused progressives with neoliberals.

Progressives are people who want to gamble with other people's lives and wellbeing.

You confused "gamble with" for "improve"

That doesn't imply that all progressive ideas are bad ideas - many of them are clearly well intentioned, and some of them are decent ideas. It's the unwillingness to employ common ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sense and plan ahead for things that a normally functioning person can see are a risk.

So the long ass policy papers and historical references don't count?

That's amplified by the emotional attachment to those ideas, such that when someone does point out the risk, the pointer-outer is demonized and vilified for considering the risk, then the risk is hand-waved away. At this point, it's become a fairly predictable playbook:
1) That will never happen
2) Okay, it happens, but it's rare and doesn't matter
3) Okay, it matters but it's actuall a good thing
4) You're a bigot/fascist/racist/etc. for pointing it out, how can you be so cruel!

Again, neoliberalism. Except we keep seeing the failure of your right-wing ideas over and over and over. No matter how many times we see the failures of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, more police, more military, those are always the first, second, and last plans for any situation.

Anyway... the problem isn't Democrats, it's not even liberals. The problem is progressives, and the degree to which progressive activists have influenced policymakers.

so, you think they need more? Because they had none, and when they got some, party leaders shanked them.

There are, of course, extremists on the Republican side as well.

The whole ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ party

They also influence policy. From my perspective, the extremists on the Republican side haven't gained ground over my lifetime, not in any material way.

so, raiding the Capitol to overturn an election is not extreme?

They're still there, but they're still outliers and we all know they're off their rockers and full of crap.

So the president, everyone in his immediate circle, and the major donors are all outliers with no influence?

The ability to recognize outliers as complete nutballs seems to have fallen by the wayside among a lot of everyday Democrats.

"We're going to conquer Greenland, murder Americans, and repeal 100 years of rights and precedent!" Are not moderate positions.

Giving people healthcare and education is not extremism.

This is why no one who talks to you for 5 seconds mistakes you for a serious adult.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Its really hard to quantize how far right threatening to annex Greenland is.

Multiple presidents, representing both parties, have tried to buy or threatened to take Greenland for about a century. It's been identified in long-standing war plans as a territory that would be seized in the event of world war since the 50s, due to its militarily advantageous position relative to Russia. The US occupied Greenland without Danish permission during WW2, and then negotiated a permanent military presence with broad powers granted to the US afterwards.

Threat of hostile take-over isn't nice and polite, but it's a very effective negotiation strategy. And regardless of Trump's complete lack of likeability, they're an astute businessman. It's definitely not diplomatic pandering by any means... but it did result in the US making headway toward a meaningfully expanded military presence in Greenland.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Threats aren't nice. 100% they're not polite, they're not friendly, they're not diplomatic. But they are effective. Why the hell else do you think hordes of people in sanctuary cities are threatening and harassing federal law enforcement, engaging in general strikes, and hassling innocent target employees? It's because they recognize that if the threat is credible, it can change the power dynamic. But it has to be credible - the entity making the threat has to be able to back it up.

Only those capable of great harm can be peaceful; all others are simply harmless.

 

[dirtywick]

can’t really explain stephen miller’s existence in the context of a world where right wing extremism hasn’t gained any ground

 

[Emily's Cat]

"We're going to conquer Greenland, murder Americans, and repeal 100 years of rights and precedent!" Are not moderate positions.

You're correct. They're also not anybody's actual real positions. They're narrative framing and linguistic hyperbole designed to enrage people who can't think critically, and who are susceptible to propaganda.

 

[Emily's Cat]

can’t really explain stephen miller’s existence in the context of a world where right wing extremism hasn’t gained any ground

Meh. Take it however you want. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration, supported English as a national language, and oppose affirmative action and DEI and similar for my whole life. What change in policy position do you think has occurred among Republicans in general over the past twenty years? And I'm not talking about rhetorical manipulation here, I'm talking about actual changes to policy objectives from what Republican positions have been in the past?

I'm not defending the guy, mind you. Just pointing out that the position and policies of the Republicans haven't much changed, whereas the positions and policies of the Democrats have.

 

[dirtywick]

it’s difficult to address the fact that a white nationalist is the deputy chief of staff for the presidency.

 

[Donal]

Donal, you’re trying to have it both ways. You claim the establishment "burns it all down" to stop progressives, but when a progressive like Zohran Mamdani wins his primary, he is the Democratic nominee. Schumer not endorsing him is a far cry from party leadership "targeting" him.

So, the mask off racism with no consequences is acceptable party politics? No one could have come out after the general and said Cuomo should drop out? Don't pretend he didn't have support within the party. And none of them said anything when it was revealed that Cuomo was getting advice from Trump. When the same billionaires that were trashing the Biden Administration and backing Trump came out throwing parties for Cuomo, they didn't say anything.

The only people who actually decided to burn it all down were the online progressives who spent the general election telling people to stay home or vote third-party.

So, they were more effective at getting their base to follow than the party establishment was at getting "moderates" and "Sensible Republicans"?

You claim the Dems are beholden to billionaires, yet your strategy of sabotaging the only viable alternative to MAGA literally put billionaires like Musk and Lutnick in charge of the Cabinet.

It's not my strategy. I said I don't agree with their actions, but its atleast as stupid to dismiss their criticisms and keep insulting them.

You’re complaining about 7 centrist votes

Because they have, y'know, actual power

while your own progressive purity tests are exactly what handed Trump and the Republicans the power to fund whatever they want in the first place.

Right, we were the ones going ape ◊◊◊◊ about "MEN IN GIRL SPORTS!" and "SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!ONEONEONE"

Those tests gave a total monopoly on the government to MAGA,

Actually, if Democrats in New York hadn't had a hissy fit about IDC members getting primaried to the point of appointing a bunch of right-wingers to the state bench, which in turn helped swing 5 seats in NY to the Republicans, the Dems might actually have the House today.

Also, if people a week away from dying would let go of their seats, that would help the Democrats, too.

and without those short sighted 'burn it all down if I don't get everything I want' tests, those 7 centrists wouldn't have been a factor at all.

Let's not kid ourselves, there will always be just enough "centrists" to ◊◊◊◊ up the Democrats' plans.

In a two-party system, not helping your side win is helping the other side win. You helped the side that’s currently pulling the triggers. Period.

Disregarding a bloc of voters you need is OK, but it's wrong for said voters to react negatively?

 

[Donal]

You're correct. They're also not anybody's actual real positions. They're narrative framing and linguistic hyperbole designed to enrage people who can't think critically, and who are susceptible to propaganda.

I highly suggest you go pay attention to the news, because you are completely out of your depth. Again.

 

[lobosrul5]

Multiple presidents, representing both parties, have tried to buy or threatened to take Greenland for about a century. It's been identified in long-standing war plans as a territory that would be seized in the event of world war since the 50s, due to its militarily advantageous position relative to Russia. The US occupied Greenland without Danish permission during WW2, and then negotiated a permanent military presence with broad powers granted to the US afterwards.

Threat of hostile take-over isn't nice and polite, but it's a very effective negotiation strategy. And regardless of Trump's complete lack of likeability, they're an astute businessman. It's definitely not diplomatic pandering by any means... but it did result in the US making headway toward a meaningfully expanded military presence in Greenland.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm sorry, but this is exceptionally misleading. Denmark was not a part of an extremely important formal military alliance that the USA was also in, in 1941. What they were, was occupied by a country for whom the USA was essentially in an undeclared war with already. And, the USA did not then, or ever before that as far as I can find ever threaten to annex them. The occupation in 1941 was never about taking their resources, it was about protecting our shores and trade routes in the North Atlantic. Something for which we do not need to annex them, since we have virtual carte blanche to build whatever military bases we feel like there. If its so important for us to protect that area, and Russia and China are so threatening, then why did we let a drawdown of over 10,000 personnel happen on our own accord in the last decades?

The USA has never until this point, AFAIK threaten to annex an actual functioning democracy, let alone territory from a nation with whom we have a formal alliance with. Its not even on the ight-left wing axis, its more ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ retarded - genius idea axis.

 

[lobosrul5]

Meh. Take it however you want. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration, supported English as a national language, and oppose affirmative action and DEI and similar for my whole life. What change in policy position do you think has occurred among Republicans in general over the past twenty years? And I'm not talking about rhetorical manipulation here, I'm talking about actual changes to policy objectives from what Republican positions have been in the past?

I'm not defending the guy, mind you. Just pointing out that the position and policies of the Republicans haven't much changed, whereas the positions and policies of the Democrats have.

Reagan is the President who put into place the asylum rules the GOP is now railing against. Declaring people illegal before they've even had an asylum hearing is not something the GOP was doing before Trump.

 

[dirtywick]

well of course. they put a white nationalist in charge of immigration, to enact his extremist agenda. makes it inconvenient to claim republicans haven’t gotten more extreme. also inconvenient to say it’s the left who has gotten more extreme, the guys who we just had a long discussion about how they’ve ditched the progressive left to pursue the moderate center

 

[Emily's Cat]

it’s difficult to address the fact that a white nationalist is the deputy chief of staff for the presidency.

So I don't actually know a lot about Miller. The wikipedia page says that they're accused of being racist, and they're clearly opposed to multiculturalism, largely opposed to immigration, and wants english to be required by immigrants. I can absolutely get how that is reasonably interpreted as being racist, but white nationalist is a whole step beyond that. So maybe, I guess?